Search results

Local landfills in communities across the US are the battlegrounds in the conflict between our desire to consume goods at an extraordinary rate and our inability to deal with waste that is a by-product of this consumption. Despite efforts to reduce the amount of wastes generated through source reduction, in 2003, US residences, businesses, and institutions produced more than 236 million tons of municipal solid waste (trash and garbage), approximately 4.5 pounds of waste per person per day (EPA, 2003a). Also in 2003, 16,694 generators of regulated hazardous waste accounted for more than 30 million tons of hazardous wastes, more than half a pound of hazardous wastes per person per day (EPA, 2003b).

The zero-waste term in municipal solid waste management has been the utopian objective of every waste management authority in the cities in developing countries, even though it comes with different perceptions, which are sometimes misguided. People can produce no waste unless they live with no consumption. The zero-waste term does not mean that we produce no waste, rather we dump no waste at the landfill site. It means we dispose of nothing at a landfill site since the issue of landfill site can be a culprit of waste management, for its reiterating city land demands that generate “headaches” to city authority because of NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard issue). No one accepts living voluntarily next to a landfill site as it creates more harm than harmless. With zero waste at the landfill site in mind, the waste management authority attempts to deal with the complexity of municipal solid waste management, by reviving each element of the waste management stakeholders to concertedly move on to deal with waste. Individual households and communities, without which waste management will not be successful, were positioned as the main thrust of waste management. A multipronged approach was implemented with all stakeholders, i.e., lawmakers, regulators, waste producers, implementers, and pressure groups, appearing with different functions but a common point: zero waste at the landfill site. A stakeholder with a large capacity, i.e., local government focuses on creating a large project that has a large impact on overall waste management; private sectors may contribute to establishing recycling centers, and waste-to-energy projects. Meanwhile, the individual households, which are large in number but have a small capacity, establish community-based activities, i.e., waste banks. This chapter attempts to provide the overall picture of municipal solid waste management in 14 cities in developing countries toward their goal of zero waste at landfill sites.

This chapter explores the state's response to the waste crisis (see also McDonagh, Varley, & Shortall, 2009). The conceptual basis for key turning points in the state's waste management policy is located within the parameters of an EM approach. An outline of eco-modern and sustainable thinking is provided in the chapter, as the state's policy shift on waste, from a reliance on landfill to a strategy informed by the EU's waste hierarchy would provide many of the political opportunities for GSE, and their political allies, to exploit.

Environment Management, Solid Waste Management.

This case is suitable to be used in advanced undergraduate and MBA/MSc level.

This case revolves around the challenges pertaining to waste management in Iran. Poor waste management practices can result in soil contamination, water pollution, and air pollution, can cause respiratory problem, and can create permanent adverse health effect. Thus, a solid waste management system is needed for safeguarding the public health, safety, and welfare. However, it seems not an easy task for the developing countries, and Iran is not an exception to this. Recycling has three particular steps: collection and processing, manufacturing, and purchasing new products which made from recycled materials which require heavy investment. Lack of investment in the Iranian recycling sector has made this issue more complicated and lagging behind. This case highlights the challenges faced by the Iranian Municipality in this regard.

The learning objectives are as follows:

• to expose students to an actual situation where they will be aware of the necessity to care for the environment and reduce and reuse the products that they are utilizing in their every days’ life;

• to highlight the need of a municipal waste management system to make route optimization for waste collection and transport system, storage, recycling plan, compost and incineration facility, proper site for landfill, etc.; and

• to emphasize the required support from all stake holders in managing waste.

to expose students to an actual situation where they will be aware of the necessity to care for the environment and reduce and reuse the products that they are utilizing in their every days’ life;

to highlight the need of a municipal waste management system to make route optimization for waste collection and transport system, storage, recycling plan, compost and incineration facility, proper site for landfill, etc.; and

to emphasize the required support from all stake holders in managing waste.

Environmental campaigns in Ireland can be divided into pre- and post-affluence phases of multinational-led economic development in Ireland between 1958 and 2002. I construct an ‘issue history’ (Szasz, 1994) that locates the GSE case within the context of a series of community challenges to toxic industries during that period. These cases are relevant to an understanding of environmental movement activity in the decades before GSE's own campaign, before the onset of economic growth, or in the post-boom years when issues such as landfilling and incineration were the subjects of disputes across Ireland. I examine some earlier cases that have parallels with GSE's case in terms of their primary focus on toxicity and health risks, but I also look at the emergence of landfill and municipal incineration disputes since the mid-1990s that can be traced to the explosion of waste as a by-product of Irish society's fixation with consumerism.

This chapter provides an overview of waste management across Europe. It offers an outlook of evolution of waste generation and how European Union (EU) countries treat waste, by providing historical and current data as well as by describing a few best practices of waste management companies and municipalities throughout Europe. The circular economy framework applied to urban waste management and the zero waste strategy are described.

With the rapid development of China’s urbanisation and market economy, municipal solid waste (MSW) generation is increasing dramatically. In response to the threat of environmental pollution and the potential value of converting waste into energy, both the government and the public are now paying more attention to MSW treatment and disposal methods. In 2014, 178.6 million tonnes of MSW was collected at a safe treatment rate of 84.8%. However, the treatment methods and the composition of MSW are influenced by the collection area, its gross domestic product, population, rainfall and living conditions. This chapter analysed the MSW composition properties of Lhasa, Tibet, compared with other cities, such as Beijing, Guangzhou and so forth. The research showed that the moisture content of MSW in Lhasa approaches 31%, which is much lower than the other cities mentioned previously. The proportion of paper and plastics (rubbers) collected was 25.67% and 19.1%, respectively. This was 1.00–3.17 times and 0.75–2.44 times more than those found in Beijing and Guangzhou, respectively. Non-combustibles can reach up to 22.5%, which was 4.03–9.11 times that of Beijing and Guangzhou, respectively. The net heating values could reach up to 6,616 kilojoule/kilogram. The food residue was only half the proportion found in other cities. Moreover, the disposal method applied in each city has also been studied and compared.

By extending their campaign beyond its NIMBY and health risk frames, GSE were able to open up a third frame, which was established from the political opportunity of democratic deficit surrounding the state's response to their campaign. This democratic deficit frame had its inception in the state's initial omission of the health risks of incineration in the CWP. By exploiting this opportunity, GSE were able to establish their own credentials through their provision of interest-led science about the health risks. Another area of democratic deficit exploited by GSE was seen in the state's attempt to rush the CWP through without undergoing the proper public consultation process that was written in to regional waste plans. Furthermore, the state's removal of the councillor's powers to decide the waste issue contributed significantly to a local sense of democratic deficit.

Currently, waste is regarded as a symptom of inefficiency. The generation of waste is a human activity, not a natural one. Currently, landfilling and incinerating wastes are common waste management techniques; but the use of these methods, in addition to wasting raw materials, causes damage to the environment, water, soil, and air. In the new concept of “Zero Waste” (ZW), waste is considered a valuable resource. A vital component of the methodology includes creating and managing items and procedures that limit the waste volume and toxicity and preserve and recover all resources rather than burning or burying them. With ZW, the end of one product becomes the beginning of another, unlike a linear system where waste is generated from product consumption. A scientific treatment technique, resource recovery, and reverse logistics may enable the waste from one product to become raw material for another, regardless of whether it is municipal, industrial, agricultural, biomedical, construction, or demolition. This chapter discusses the concept of zero landfills and zero waste and related initiatives and ideas; it also looks at potential obstacles to put the ZW concept into reality. Several methods are presented to investigate and evaluate efficient resource utilization for maximum recycling efficiency, economic improvement through resource minimization, and mandatory refuse collection. One of the most practical and used approaches is the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach, which is based on green engineering and the cradle-to-cradle principle; the LCA technique is used in most current research, allowing for a complete investigation of possible environmental repercussions. This approach considers the entire life cycle of a product, including the origin of raw materials, manufacturing, transportation, usage, and final disposal, or recycling. Using a life cycle perspective, all stakeholders (product designers, service providers, political and legislative agencies, and consumers) may make environmentally sound and long-term decisions.

This chapter chronicles some of the early years of the author growing up in the racially segregated South Alabama and its influence on his thinking about race, environment, social equity, and government responsibility and his journey to becoming an environmental sociologist, scholar, and activist. Using an environmental justice paradigm, he uncovers the underlying assumptions that contribute to and produce unequal protection. The environmental justice paradigm provides a useful framework for examining and explaining the spatial relation between the health of marginalized populations and their built and natural environment, and government response to natural and man-made disasters in African American communities. Clearly, people of color communities have borne a disproportionate burden and have received differential treatment from government in its response to health threats such as childhood lead poisoning, toxic waste and contamination, industrial accidents, hurricanes, floods and related weather-related disasters, and a host of other man-made disasters. The chapter brings to the surface the ethical and political questions of “who gets what, why, and how much” and why some communities get left behind before and after disasters strike.